|
Girth Comparaison of Animals
|
 (04-19-2018, 08:54 PM)Pckts Wrote: I've said it before, but once again, there is no cut and dry lift to declare strength, feats of strength are many and some of the strongest men on the planet still have weak spots, it's never a black and white issue. I can agree with this, although we can generally say that bears have a general pound-for-pound advantage over big cats in strength (but cats still pull stronger, I think) and strongman (much more obviously) generally have a huge strength advantage over basketball or baseball players, strongmen may not be proficient in strength out of their flexibility as basketball players are. But this doesn't mean that bears are absolutely stronger than big cats in every way simply because they have most strength advantages. Similar to me, I always had that natural "real-life strength" from helping my dad with manual labor growing up, but when I started powerlifting, I naturally excelled at the deadlift and curl but was struggling extremely badly with benches. Even with perfect form, my lats far exceeded my pecs in terms of muscle balance, which obviously hurt my muscle imbalances when I pressed the weight back up. Benches felt weird to me all the way until I stopped powerlifting, so I started not liking them. Squats were meh (improved that a lot too though), although my hip flexors were tight (and still are) which were created from/and created an anterior pelvic tilt from me walking "weird" since the age of 10 or so. I would generally agree that there is no absolute way to determine absolute strength between two individual animals with similar molecular muscle formation or similar muscle mass percentage. And football players and smaller-sized strongmen are a great example of this.  (04-19-2018, 09:21 PM)Polar Wrote:(04-19-2018, 08:54 PM)Pckts Wrote: I've said it before, but once again, there is no cut and dry lift to declare strength, feats of strength are many and some of the strongest men on the planet still have weak spots, it's never a black and white issue. The bear GM09 certainly has a lb for lb advantage, and whether he is an outlier or a standard amongst certain sub species of Brown bear is still unknown to me, but other sub species of bears aren't as impressive in their measurements and are beaten out by big cats, so it may come down to certain individual bears or sub species. At maximums though, the bear certainly gets the nod in the chest and neck region, no cat outlier can match GM09s measurements at equal weights. But that being said, the weight distribution has to go somewhere, so even saying a bear and cat both at 200kg and a bear with a larger chest, neck and most likely midsection girth will then have a smaller forelimb section which as we know will mean the bear has a more sturdy base while the cat should have a stronger grappling advantage, bears also have flat feet which allow them to be balanced in 4 or 2 leg standing position where cats do not so that may also play into the factor in their muscle distribution. In human terms, I'd put cats in the Jiu Jitsu area and Bears in the Greco Roman Wrestling area. But other bears shown from different locations, where their weight and girth measurements were equal/close to big cats, I'd have to say the advantage would be with big cats. I was also thinking about something else, what does a cats Tail weigh? Because even though its statistically minimal, it still is weight distribution that isn't going towards a specific muscle grouping. 
A full-grown boar grizzly of equal head-and-body length of a full-grown Bengal tiger has a greater girth ( chest, belly, neck, limbs ). At weight-parity, the tiger is anywhere from 12 to 18 inches longer in head-and-body length, which also shows in bipedal height, making such a girth comparison void - meaningless.
I
(04-19-2018, 10:18 PM)brotherbear Wrote: A full-grown boar grizzly of equal head-and-body length of a full-grown Bengal tiger has a greater girth ( chest, belly, neck, limbs ). At weight-parity, the tiger is anywhere from 12 to 18 inches longer in head-and-body length, which also shows in bipedal height, making such a girth comparison void - meaningless. Incorrect, you're confusing Total length with Head and Body length in big cats, remember the Tail which makes up 1/3 or the total length is used for big cats while bears don't have a tail or a very short one at most, Most bears shown had equal or longer body length compared to the tigers with similar girth. Some bears did have higher girth at shorter length and some did not, method of measurement was still unknown as well. Comparisons aren't meaningless by definition, your preference for one comparison to another dictates your stance on the topic, we're well aware of that but your preference holds no weight as to whether one is "right or wrong," same as mine or anyone else. I'm also curious as to why you hold so tight onto the "body length" argument but you never mention shoulder height. Why not the same defense of having equal shoulder heights before the comparison is deemed correct in your book?
I'm not the one confused pckts.
A comparison of the Amur tigress and the Amur ( black grizzly ) she-bear - Average Sized Animals: Tiger: head and body length - 172 cm ( 5 feet 8 inches ) - Grizzly: head and body length - 160 cm ( 5 feet 3 inches ). Tiger: shoulder height - 78 cm ( 2 feet 8 inches ) - Grizzly: shoulder height - 96 cm ( 3 feet 2 inches ). Tiger: weight - 137.5 kg ( 303 pounds ) - Grizzly: weight - 189 kg ( 417 pounds ). *Average mature male Amur tiger and average mature female Amur grizzly = 189 kg ( 417 pounds ) each - the bear is 35.56 cm ( 14 inches ) shorter in head and body length.
Above picture ( post #201 ).
Tiger head-and-body length = 195 cm ( 76.77 inches )... girth 119 cm ( 46.85 inches ). Grizzly head-and-body length = 196 cm ( 77.17 inches )... girth 137 cm ( 53.94inches ).
I'm also curious as to why you hold so tight onto the "body length" argument but you never mention shoulder height.
Why not the same defense of having equal shoulder heights before the comparison is deemed correct in your book? *Because it makes no sense. The bear has longer legs plus a shoulder hump. Why are you so against a fair comparison of length and bipedal height? This is fair for a girth comparison - like two men each standing 6 feet tall. Well, from my point of view; your reasons are obvious.  (04-19-2018, 11:21 PM)brotherbear Wrote: I'm not the one confused pckts. I completely agree with @ (04-19-2018, 11:27 PM)brotherbear Wrote: And I have a question about these types of graphs...they give you a range for each measurement (i.e. (178-208)), do the extreme numbers at each end represent absolute individual maximum or average maximum? Studies can differ by what they portray when selecting a range of values.  (04-20-2018, 02:10 AM)Polar Wrote:(04-19-2018, 11:27 PM)brotherbear Wrote: The average is based off their combined measurements divided by total individuals I assume. For the Bear to equal a similar HBL average while having a much higher maximum, I'd guess that more individuals were on the lower end of the spectrum while the larger bears were fewer but with very impressive numbers. I.E. 252 HBL, 154 Chest Girth and 321kg BW. I'd be curious what the 2011-2013 193kg average bears (3 individuals) numbers were since they weren't used in the comparison and would be closer to the Tigers weight. I also don't know how the 264kg average was gotten for the Bears since the range is from 260kg to 321kg and there were 10 individuals used. That'd have to be all 260kg bears and one 321kg and even then the average would be 266kg. If that were the case that would also show tremendous individual variations between bears. I think I figured out a better way to explain why LB for LB is the better option when comparing these two. If you were to determine girth amongst a lion to a tiger, you'd probably do so at 200kg lets say, that number is a normal sized adult of either and they have preexisting measurements to go off of, If you were to compare a Polar Bear to a Kodiak bear, you wouldn't go off body length, you'd go off body weight, both are relatively close so you could find two individuals that are the same weight and compare their measurements from there. Using this option you'd then be able to get a better understanding of how their weight is distributed and thus how they compare to one another in each area. If you wanted to go really deep into it, you would then need to go off skeletal weight and size as well, a Bear has a heavier skeleton and thicker bones, both of which contribute to girth, how much so or what % is unknown but it's another factor to consider. Even comparing a Leopard to a Lion or a Sloth Bear to a Grizzly, you be better off doing so in weight since they are built differently and their skeletal structure is distributed differently. I think a good example is a Cheetah to a Leopard, both are relatively close in weight but you wouldn't compare them at shoulder height or body length since the cheetah is built very differently in all areas from the leopard, here is a good comparison table of each  *This image is copyright of its original author Averages: Cheetah HBL 55 Leopard HBL 51 Cheetah 46kg Leopard 53kg Cheetah CG 74 Leopard CG 78 Cheetah SH 79 Leopard SH 69 Cheetah NG 38 Leopard NG 51 Cheetah AG 61 Leopard AG 74 Because both or close in weight we are now able to determine their morphological differences The Cheetah will be slightly longer in the body and Taller at the shoulder while the Leopard will be thicker in the Neck, Abdomen and slightly more in the chest but very close there. If you were to even the odds, you wouldn't then add body length to the leopard, that's not how the leopard is built. You would determine the % difference between the Cheetah and Leopard in Body weight and add the % difference to the Cheetah's body measurements and that would give you a clearer idea of their comparison when both are on an even playing field for averages only. Going off of this you can make the assumption that a leopard is going to have a much thicker neck and abdomen while a cheetah is going to be much taller, their chest girth and body length are fairly close.The leopard should also have thicker limbs and a heavier skull and thus the weight distribution is in the shoulder height for the Cheetah and the aforementioned areas for the leopard.
I think I figured out a better way to explain why LB for LB is the better option when comparing these two.
*Why pound-for-pound does not work when comparing girth: girth produces weight. When you reduce the weight of the heavier competitor, the comparison is then void. (04-22-2018, 01:13 AM)brotherbear Wrote: I think I figured out a better way to explain why LB for LB is the better option when comparing these two.There is no "reducing weight" It's a lb for lb comparison. Feel free to bring up specific points in my previous post that you don't agree with, please add your reasoning and how they would be improved when you get time. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 25 Guest(s) |